The High Court · 2025

SRI. SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL - SC SRI. M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR - SC SRI. T.C KRISHNA – DSGI IN CHARGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.12325 OF 2025 13 JUDGMENT The petitioners were employed under the 4th respondent establishment. They retired from service on various dates subsequent to

01.09.2014 . They have filed this writ petition for direction to the 3rd respondent to process the Joint Option Forms preferred by them in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Employees Provident Fund Organisation and another v. Sunil Kumar B. and others [2022 (7) KHC 12], within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court Employees Provident Fund Organisation and another (supra) held as follows:- “We accordingly hold and direct:- WP(C) NO.12325 OF 2025 14 (i) The provisions contained in the notification no. G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22nd August 2014 are legal and valid. So far as present members of the fund are concerned, we have read down certain provisions of the Scheme as applicable in their cases and we shall give our findings and directions on these provisions in the subsequent sub-paragraphs. (ii) Amendment to the pension Scheme brought about by the notification No.G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22nd August 2014 shall apply to the employees of the exempted establishments in the same manner as the employees of the regular establishments. Transfer of funds from the exempted establishments shall be in the manner as we have already directed. (iii) The employees who had exercised option under the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 Scheme and continued to be in service as on 1st September 2014, will be guided by the amended provisions of paragraph 11(4) of the pension scheme. (iv) The members of the scheme, who did not exercise option, as contemplated in the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the pension scheme (as it was before the 2014 Amendment) would be entitled to exercise option under paragraph 11(4) of the post amendment Scheme. Their right to exercise option before 1st September 2014 stands crystalised in the judgment of this Court in the case of R.C. Gupta WP(C) NO.12325 OF 2025 15 (supra). The scheme as it stood before 1st September 2014 did not provide for any cutoff date and thus those members shall be entitled to exercise option in terms of paragraph 11(4) of the Scheme, as it stands at present. Their exercise of option shall be in the nature of joint options covering pre-amended paragraph 11(3) as also the amended paragraph 11(4) of the pension Scheme. There was uncertainty as regards validity of the post amendment Scheme, which was quashed by the aforesaid judgments of the three High Courts. Thus, all the employees who did not exercise option but were entitled to do so but could not due to the interpretation on cut-off date by the authorities, ought to be given a further chance to exercise their option. Time to exercise option under paragraph 11(4) of the Scheme, under these circumstances, shall stand extended by a further period of four months. We are giving this direction in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Rest of the requirements as per the amended provision shall be complied with. (v) The employees who had retired prior to 1st September 2014 without exercising any option under paragraph 11(3) of the preamendment Scheme have already exited from the membership thereof. They would not be entitled to the benefit WP(C) NO.12325 OF 2025 16 of this judgment. (vi) The employees who have retired before 1st September 2014 upon exercising option under paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 scheme shall be covered by the provisions of the paragraph 11(3) of the pension Scheme as it stood prior to the amendment of 2014. (vii) The requirement of the members to contribute at the rate of 1.16 per cent of their salary to the extent such salary exceeds ₹15,000/- per month as an additional contribution under the amended Scheme is held to be ultra vires the provisions of the 1952 Act. But for the reasons already explained above, we suspend operation of this part of our order for a period of six months. We do so to enable the authorities to make adjustments in the Scheme so that the additional contribution can be generated from some other legitimate source within the scope of the Act, which could include enhancing the rate of contribution of the employers. We are not speculating on what steps the authorities will take as it would be for the legislature or the framers of the Scheme to make necessary amendment. For the aforesaid period of six months or till such time any whichever is amendment is made, earlier, the employees' contribution shall be as stop gap measure. The said sum shall be adjustable on the basis of alteration to the Scheme that may be made. WP(C) NO.12325 OF 2025 17 (viii) We do not find any flaw in altering the basis for computation of pensionable salary. (ix) We agree with the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of R.C. Gupta (supra) so far as interpretation of the proviso to paragraph 11(3) (pre- amendment) concerned. The fund authorities shall implement the directives contained in the said judgment within a period of eight weeks, subject to our directions contained earlier in this paragraph. pension scheme (x) The Contempt Petition (C) Nos.1917- 1918 of 2018 and Contempt Petition (C) Nos.619- 620 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos.10013-10014 of 2016 are disposed of in the above terms.”

2. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited supra, the petitioners’ Joint Option Forms need to be processed by the 3rd respondent. The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to process the Joint Option Forms preferred by the petitioners in accordance with the judgment of the Hon’ble WP(C) NO.12325 OF 2025 18 Supreme Court in Employees provident Fund Organisation and another (supra) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SPR WP(C) NO.12325 OF 2025 19 APPENDIX PETITIONER’ S EXHIBITS :- EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO PENSION/2022/56259/16541 DATED 20/02/2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.11.2022 IN EPFO & ANR. ETC. VS. SUNIL KUMAR B. & ORS., SLP (C) NO. 8658-8659 OF 2019. TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND LETTER DATED 29/11/2023 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17/07/2024 IN W.P(C) 24205/2024 OF THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER DATED 17/01/2025. RESPONDENT S EXHIBITS: - NIL.